intramuralist ™ – Page 102 – A Respectful Dialogue of Current Events

10/15/201510/15/2015

do all lives matter?

One question struck me arguably most during this week’s debate: “Do black lives matter? OR… do all lives matter?”

We have had some excellent conversations regarding the #BlackLivesMatter movement, the sensitivity of the issue, and the difficulty of those from varied vantage points seeing any other side. I have grown and learned much in these discussions about this challenging, controversial issue.

I have also sincerely appreciated those who have respectfully proclaimed the validity of the #BlackLivesMatter movement because for so long — and sometimes still — persons of diverse creed and color have felt that their lives did not matter… or… that their lives somehow mattered less.

Friends, no life matters less than another…

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Amen. Agreed. We are all created equal. We are created with diverse skills and unique gifting, but we each have certain, unalienable rights. And while the Intramuralist previously expressed discomfort at the inability to propose that other lives actually also matter, I empathetically understand the respectfully-articulated passion of the person who feels there is valid reason to at this time, in this season, promote the value of only black lives.

What struck me about the question in Tuesday night’s debate, no less, was not whether or not at this time, in this season, it’s appropriate to promote the mattering of only one kind of life; what struck me was the word “or.” I was astounded that the two “types” of life were juxtaposed squarely against one another. A candidate could only answer one.

“Do black lives matter? OR… do all lives matter?”

In other words — what I heard — perhaps wrongly — is that only one can be true.

Follow me here… I’m concerned…

I learned much last August from the respectful dialogue surrounding a post after the innocent policeman was shot and killed in Houston, Texas simply while pumping gas; we published the quote from his county sheriff, in which the officer said in response, “We’ve heard black lives matter; all lives matter. Well, cops’ lives matter, too.”

What I heard in response then from several respectful dissenters — who I believe stated their opinions incredibly, logically and compassionately well — was that “of course all lives matter”… “of course cops’ lives matter.” And that just because persons are passionately proclaiming “black lives matter,” that does not mean that other lives do not.

But for the first time Tuesday night, I didn’t hear any “of course.” I didn’t hear an “or.” I heard “we can only pick one.”

Friends, if our society has digressed to a point where we must omit the “of course” — where we have to choose which lives matter and which lives don’t — my strong sense is that we are treading on nothing less than treacherous waters.

Let’s be clear; the #BlackLivesMatter movement has validity. Black lives matter and that’s ok to be shouted from the rooftops. I also have no problem with similar shouts of significance proclaimed by others who perceive unfairness and/or oppression… the police… Christians… the disabled… the unborn… the elderly. Each has a right to passionately, respectfully, and nonviolently proclaim their uniqueness — in addition to their unmistakable worth, endowed by our Creator.

The problem arises when we are encouraged to pick only one.

There is no such thing as only one life mattering. There is no such thing as one life mattering more than another. There is no such thing as the “or.” There is such a time to shout the meaning of one life. But when we pit lives against one another, trumping one over the other, making people choose — we are advocating for oppression comparable to what we cry out against.

Of course, all lives matter. None of us should have to deny that.

Respectfully…
AR

10/13/2015

the next debate

Tonight in Las Vegas is the first Democratic Party debate for the 2016 Presidential nomination. Just as during the thus far, two Republican presidential debates, the Intramuralist will be watching. We plan to watch each debate, as we care deeply about who becomes President — and what each candidate says and believes in. We watch because we want to know; we want to understand; and we want as much information as possible — especially embracing any info which has not been manipulated via the editorialized efforts of any media or by the hands of any intentionally crafted campaign.

I must admit, I was a little dismayed by the many who took to the tweets and airwaves after the initial Republican debate turns. I heard some cries in regard to what “fools” or “losers” they were/are — with no candidate deserving their attention — none having anything worthwhile to contribute or say. I wondered if those observers had watched the same few hours I did… I wondered if such is appropriate to say about any person or party… I also wondered if some had their minds made up before they ever started watching…

Oh, we can be such an arrogant people… we each can… we all can… I so crave humility and objectivity…

I thus look forward to tonight’s debate. I look forward to what the following will say…

— Former Sec. of State/First Lady Hillary Clinton
— Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders from Vermont
— Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley
— Former U.S. Senator from Virginia Jim Webb
— And Republican-turned-Democrat, Gov. Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island

Coverage begins at 8:30 p.m. EST on CNN.

I look especially forward to insights from O’Malley, Webb, and Chafee. They seem somewhat drowned out by the current sounds of mainstream media; I want to hear the candidates speak for themselves. I’d like to hear what they have to say and attempt to sense what’s most important to them.

I also look forward to the comments from Clinton and Sanders. Hillary seems potentially, significantly ethically scarred. I mean no disrespect. I simply can’t discern what she most believes in and whether or not she is honest with us; I sense too many responses that seem overtly calculated. She’s certainly not alone in being intentional in how she responds, yet her perceived, detailed calculation makes this semi-humble observer uncomfortable. Granted, my perception may be inaccurate; it also is a perception shared by many across the country. Authenticity is a problem.

Then there’s (“Feel the Bern?”) Sanders, who is obviously the “anti-Hillary” candidate — meaning he’s admirably authentic and we know what he believes in; we aren’t questioning whether or not he’s being honest with us (… I like that in whom I vote for!). The challenge is that Bernie is a self-identified Socialist (his words — not mine). He believes in a Socialist approach to solving our already heavily debt-laden economy, even though Socialism has historically led to an oppressive, economically-destructive form of government — as good as all the populist free stuff sounds. To be fair, Bernie says he is a “democratic socialist,” meaning he is not expressing a desire to replace capitalism nor confiscate private property. He instead lauds Scandinavian social democracy. Such still serves as a far more extensive role of government in the American citizen’s life — something each of us attracted to his authenticity should also work to comprehend. We need to research. We need to listen well.

So let’s listen. Maybe we’re wrong. Maybe I’m wrong. I’m sure I’m wrong about something… maybe lots.

But I have a feeling I will be sitting back tonight, keeping an open mind, still craving something more.

Where is Joe, anyway?

There’s just something about Biden’s gaffes that President-or-not, is relatable and endearing. I kind of like that.

… yes… desiring for relatable, endearing, authentic, and economically sound.

Can someone find the remote?

Respectfully…
AR

10/11/201510/11/2015

all this

In light of my youngest celebrating a birthday over the weekend (which I might add, began notably, unintentionally, incredibly enthusiastically early, at 4:30 Friday morning — due to an extremely high, off-the-charts exuberance level) — there is one, brief aspect I felt necessary to expand upon here.

You see, a long standing premise of the Intramuralist is to consistently advocate for a focus on all that is good and true and right. In fact, one of our cultural challenges it seems, is that both individually and corporately, we spend so much energy and attention on that which is not good and true and right… division… strife… evil… impurity… a lack of loyalty and/or faithfulness, etc. Such takes up way too much of our time, minds, and airwaves.

“… whatever is true, whatever is worthy of respect, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if something is excellent or praiseworthy, think about these things…”

My now 14 year old son, Josh — that child born years ago with an extra special need, chromosome, and a wall missing in is heart — is one of the best, most effective ways God teaches me now in regard to all that is good and true and right.

As expected, no less, this joy-filled teen’s birthday included music and dancing, cake and cookies, and multiple friends and family. He received many day-brightening gifts, calls, texts, and visits that made his heart so obviously overflow with thanks. (It made this parent even need a nap.)

Yet the moment that seemed most “blog-worthy” was seemingly small in comparison. It was just a singular sentence — a comment Josh made before the festivities were in full swing; yet it was a moment that is still making me think…

Standing outside briefly before the sunrise, in between our daily repertoire of song and dance preceding the much anticipated school bus arrival, Josh stopped his singing, pausing for a moment of thanks. He wanted to give God thanks for the celebration of the day — and more.

And in the middle of that moment — in this conversation I felt deeply privileged to overhear — Josh stopped, leaned somewhat backwards, grinning from ear to ear, and pointing meekly to himself said:

“And God, thanks for all this.”

Thanks for all this.

There was no focus on what some may see as missing.
There was no ignoring of current circumstances.
There was no dismissal of having Down syndrome.
There was no wishing he was someone or something else.
There was no desire to be any different.
There was only a joy-laced expression of gratitude for who he is…

Thanks for all this.

Whatever is true… whatever is lovely… think about these things…

Respectfully…
AR

10/08/201510/08/2015

AP GOV

My mother has long talked to me about the blank chalkboards in each of our lives. Here it is… behind us… blank… just waiting to be written upon. Time for new markings — sometimes with a little dust leftover from the eraser — but new markings, nonetheless. The beautiful time to write is now.

My older son no doubt felt that empowering chalkboard behind him when he left for year one in college last fall; he was well aware and excited for the unique opportunity ahead of him.

My middle son is currently sensing the chalkboard — at least politically; he’s enrolled in AP Government.

Let me first diffuse a bit of my facetious facade… JT’s class selection certainly pales in comparison to his older brother’s whole new set up and surroundings. Relevant, however, to our Intramuralist postings, my middle son is learning all about government and politics; he’s seeing the big picture — and all the little nuances — all, comprehensively, for the first time. Note: it will not be me who does the writing upon his beautiful, blank chalkboard.

He observes.
He processes.
He asks questions and more questions — and then comes to his own conclusions…

Is democracy the wisest form of government?

Do people realize that a democratic republic is different than pure democracy?

Why would someone consistently support spending more money than they take in?

What lives do we protect and what lives don’t we? Why the difference?

How is it that politicians can promise free college without a way to pay for it?

Where is the limit to taxation?

How can a person claim to be tolerant but then be intolerant of the one who thinks different than they do?

Why do these guys stay in office so long? Why are there not term limits?

What is despotism?

How involved should government be in creating social policy?

How did Christianity influence our Constitution? What was our founders’ desire?

What’s the definition of the separation of Church and State? Does it really exist?

How do people misconstrue the Constitution?

Is that Executive Order legal? Do presidents know they can’t legislate? Does the Supreme Court know they can’t legislate?

Do people realize the foolishness in politicizing EVERYTHING?

AND…

Is there anything else we should be declaring our independence from?

I’m thankful this day my son isn’t quite ready to claim full independence from me… although it’s not my job to do all the writing on his chalkboard.

The beauty is that the younger generation gets to fill it in on their own. We get the privilege of watching them grow.

Respectfully…
AR

10/06/201510/06/2015

what are we talking about?

We cry out over the killing of the innocent…

Some cried out for Matthew Shepard in ’98, beaten and tortured and left to die by two other, seemingly heartless young men, believed to have targeted Shepard because of his sexual orientation.
Most cried out on 9/11, when 2,977 people were murdered by Islamic terrorists, who specifically targeted those thousands because they lived on American soil.
And we all cried out after Charleston last June, when nine African-Americans were shot and killed while praying — at the hands of a young white man, saying he hoped to ignite a race war.

We cry out over the killing of the innocent. We even call them “hate crimes”… crimes motivated by the killer’s disdain of the different. And yet…

Last Thursday, a 26 year old, seemingly also heartless shooter, walked into Umpqua Community College in Oregon, shooting and killing nine innocent others. According to multiple reports, the shooter shot and killed those who identified themselves as Christians.

And what does our current national dialogue seem to be centered on?

Gun control.

From the Intramuralist’s vantage point — which admittedly, is a limited point of view — as each of ours is — here we have another awful, horrendous mass shooting… another incident in which the innocent die young. But unlike Matthew Shepard’s death — where we talked about the callousness and cruelty of a man killed because he was gay… and unlike the scene inside Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston last summer — where we talked about the callousness and cruelty of men and women killed because they were black… instead of talking about the callousness and cruelty of college students being killed because they are Christians, we talk most about gun control. Something doesn’t make sense.

Make no mistake about it; gun control is an issue worth discussing. It is an issue worth discussing after each of these tragedies; none of us wish to feel this way again. But if the conversation after Oregon focuses more on gun control than on the motive for the shooting, we are omitting an inconvenient truth. The students at Umpqua were killed because they admitted a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Then I take note of what’s happening around the world…

ISIS kills many; they kill many solely because they admit to being Christians.
I see Christians persecuted in North Korea, Somalia, and Iraq.
Christians are also often targeted in Africa — in Egypt, Kenya, and Nigeria.
They are targeted, too, in Afghanistan and Syria.

In other words, like it or not, ignore it or not, people who believe that God so loved the world that he sent Jesus to this planet to be their one and only saving grace, are being targeted in increasingly, multiple countries.

And only sometimes, we talk about it.

Let me say again that I have no issue when in response to tragedy, we respectfully debate what aspects of gun control are most effective. I also have no issue discussing the seemingly heartless targeting of innocent persons because they are gay or because they are black or because of some other, isolated factor; that targeting is — in my totally respectful, semi-humble opinion — wrong.

I do have issue, however, with the arbitrary acknowledgment of hate crimes. I have issue when we ignore the reason a man or woman was killed was because they had put their faith in Jesus. There exists an all too selective silence. I wonder why.

Respectfully…
AR

10/04/201510/04/2015

curbing the violence

Another shooting. Another predictable, rhetorical cycle. It goes something like this:

There is too much violence!
When are we going to stop this?!
We need more gun control!
No, we don’t!
Yes, we do!
No, we don’t!
Yes, we do!

And hence, the disrespectful debate continues. We have lots of admirably passionate leaders and individuals, but the issue is never adequately solved.

My strong sense is that the issue of curbing gun violence is never adequately solved because we never deal with all that influences the issue. We rant and rave and pick and choose what aspect to jump on; we fulminate on Facebook or utilize Twitter to take others to task… “When will this stop?!” That’s the main idea; we want it to stop. Save for a less honorable few, yes, we all want it to stop.

But we tend to harp on aspects nearer and dearer to our hearts; we tend to repeat angles consistent with our favorite partisan proclamations. We blame people, presidents, and police. We blame groups and gangs who we perceive to most contribute to the existence of gun violence. We tend to emphasize singular aspects while ignoring other aspects — as opposed to wrestle with and acknowledge all angles of the problem. Such as (in alphabetical order):

1. Evil
2. Gangs
3. Law
4. Lobbyists
5. Mental health
6. Movies
7. Rap music
8. Sin
9. Terrorism
10. Video games

And more.

Many will address only one of the above. Addressing only one aspect, however, seems a futile attempt to adhere a tiny, tiny Band-Aid on a pulsating, gaping wound — that will thus continue to bleed. The Band-Aid makes us feel better… but it isn’t effective.

For example, many will understandably direct their angst toward the lobbyists — at the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), suggesting the group’s approximate $3 million dollars spent annually distorts the legislative process. Many simultaneously ignore that the NRA isn’t included in the top 20 spenders — and were also silent when the American Medical Association (AMA) influenced healthcare and the National Association of Realtors (NAR) influenced mortgage lending legislation. AMA has spent $19.5 million and the NAR has spent near $16 million this year thus far. (Note that the Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest lobbyist spender, has spent $42 million in 2015.) We need to be consistent in our cries out against lobbyists’ influence — a stated passion of the Intramuralist.

Others examples of addressing singular aspects are seen in how some only focus on the perceived sins of the shooter — ignoring the potential mental health component or illness. Others still, will focus only on mental health — ignoring how evil so obviously permeates this world.

Forget not the impact of the music, movie, and gaming industries. Amazon, Forbes, and USA Today all show lists of the most popular video games dominated by celebrated violence.

I wonder, too, if the gunman’s motives are relevant… The shooter at Umpqua Community College in Oregon last week, for example, killed people because they were Christians. Said one witness via Twitter, if they were Christian, “Then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs.” Seems like gun control isn’t the only issue here. Can we honestly wrestle with the religious persecution? Maybe the motive is the bigger picture.

My point today, friends, is that there are all sorts of angles and approaches when considering the violence on this planet. We have a desire to curb it, to stop it. But unless we are willing to wrestle with and acknowledge the totality of the problem — and the entire bigger picture — our efforts, as good and passionate as they may sound, may remain sadly futile.

Respectfully…
AR

10/01/201510/01/2015

voting guide

No one should tell any of the rest of us how to vote. So let me try. 🙂

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are a woman or a man. I, like you, have many female and male friends, and it is a fact that their gender does not automatically make them capable — or incapable — of being a wise President.

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are black. Nope. I, like most of you, have friends who are black, white, Hispanic, Asian, etc. Their race has not made any of them more — or less — qualified to be President.

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they have no political experience. Let’s face it; many of the elect have had substantial, lengthy political resumes. Resumes do not necessarily equate to wisdom nor success; resumes do not teach them how to work with other parties nor people. Hence, a political resume will not automatically garner my vote.

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are a Christian or faithfully adhere to some other religion. I’ve known far too many who pick and choose which aspects of their faith to serve and observe. I’ve known far too many believers and non-believers alike whose arrogance and lack of humility was a clear, non-permeable obstruction to effective leadership.

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are a Democrat or Republican. I realize this may get somewhat trickier, but the reality is we have witnessed far too many on both sides of the proverbial, partisan aisle who have been either narcissistic, crooked, or both — none of which, with all due respect, is worthy of representing me. Sharing similar political leanings is simply not enough.

Hence, I will not vote for or against anyone solely because of their gender, race, religion, party, or other demographic factor.   I will, however, vote for the following:

(1) Someone, as best as possible, that I believe to be ethical.

(2) Someone, as best as possible, who has demonstrated sound comprehension of economic principles. And…

(3) Someone, as best as possible, with whom I agree on multiple policy issues (…notice that I didn’t say “all” nor a single, specific one.)

In that order. That’s it.

If a person isn’t perceived to be ethical, then I cannot discern accurately whether they truly comprehend the economy. If a person isn’t perceived to be ethical, then I cannot discern accurately whether we agree on policy positions — or if they are flip-flopping, evolving, or what. If a person isn’t perceived to be ethical, I cannot trust them to tell me the truth.

I want a candidate whose “yes” means “yes” and whose “no” means “no.” I want a person who will say what they think — as opposed to say what they think I want them to. This means more to me than consensus and agreement. (Note that I have yet to find a person with whom I agree on all things… not even in my own household.)

Too ideal for today’s culture? Too ideal for a culture where partisan politicians incite and divide more than listen and unite? Too ideal for a culture infused with a biased, 24 hour news cycle?

Back to that ideal candidate…

Did I mention I’d also like them to be a Bengals fan, support Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, and believe Tom Brady should be suspended for “Deflategate”?

Ok… maybe I am an idealist after all.

Respectfully…
AR

09/29/201509/29/2015

ad hominem

[Full disclosure notice: the point of this post will not come until the very end; if no interest in politics this day — and believe me, I get that — feel free to skip to the final paragraph.]

Milli Vanilli told us to “Blame It on the Rain.”
Michael Caine and company told us to “Blame It on Rio.”
The second season of “Glee” told us to “Blame It on the Alcohol.”
Conveniently targeted others include the night, Bossa Nova, and the Boogie.

Multiple times over the past 7 years, the Intramuralist has made mention of ad hominem attacks. It seems the topic continues to be relevant.

According to Merriam-Webster, “ad hominem” means:
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; or…
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

According to Urban Dictionary (because it’s typically much more entertaining), “ad hominem” means: “An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their argument or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.”

In Latin, “ad hominem” means “against the man.” In other words, instead of honestly wrestling with the validity of an accusation, in an ad hominem attack, the responder attempts to shift the focus onto “the man” who asked — getting the focus off of self and hoping to shift the focus elsewhere, thereby never having to actually wrestle with the potential validity of the accusation.

Let the Intramuralist go out on a limb by making the following assertion: ad hominem attacks are alive and well on planet Earth today. When faced with damaging accusations, many have no desire to wrestle with the truth; they instead work to intentionally focus attention elsewhere.

While considering revisiting this too common topic, I ironically awoke to the following headline extracted from the Sunday news shows: “Bill Clinton Blames G.O.P. and Press for Wife’s Email Woes.”

First, for full disclosure, it is a known caveat that the Intramuralist desires someone other than a Bush or Clinton in the White House this time around. I mean no disrespect; I simply believe someone new and fresh has greater potential to lead and unite our country at this time.

Second, consistent with our values, I desire to wrestle with and promote what is good and true and right.

And third, referencing the facts, as reported by numerous news outlets — left, right, and no-bias whatsoever (if that actually exists) — there are multiple activities and comments by Hillary Clinton herself that do not fit together. Some statements are contradictory; some seem like lies. The FBI is even involved. In other words, Hillary Clinton’s own behavior has contributed to her current predicament. She is declining in popularity. She is being perceived as significantly, increasingly untrustworthy.

So what does Hillary’s spouse do? Blame someone else.

Let’s be honest in acknowledging that there is no doubt that multiple persons have zero desire to see Hillary Clinton win the White House; some will do whatever they (hopefully only) legally can to deter her. There are also persons doing whatever they (again, hopefully only) legally can to deter a Carson, Fiorina, etal. presidency. But what Bill Clinton does in his comments is a clear attempt to redirect the focus, ignoring how Hillary and her campaign have significantly, negatively contributed to her downward slide.

Let’s also not be too hard on Bill. I respect his loyalty, and I have minimal doubt he is alone in his semi-valiant attempts to get the rest of us to focus elsewhere. My small sense, in fact, is that one Mr. Donald Trump may also be well-versed in this disingenuous tactic. In my desire for all that is good and true and right, however, I wish that far fewer candidates would be so well-versed.

(…and the main point of today’s post?) Be prepared. Keep watching. We only have another 405 days until the actual election. (Sigh.)

Respectfully…
AR

09/27/2015

omission

Except for all those with their laptops, TV’s, and portable electronic devices turned off last week, we were well aware of Pope Francis interacting with leaders and little ones, for the first time on American soil. From DC to NYC to his departure this night from Philadelphia, the Pope has called the people to something. That’s what’s fascinating — how we summarize that “something.”

People pounce on what they want to. They summarize the Pope’s message — characterizing and crafting the Pope’s exhortation in unique, albeit limited ways. Note the specific characterizations and summaries in recent days…

The editorial board of the NY Times laid out what they called, the Pope’s “challenge to America” — saying American leaders “must never forget the nation’s own roots of tolerance and equal justice.” They said Pope Francis called for “rational and just treatment of refugees here and abroad” in a veiled “rebuke” to some of the “ugly diatribes” amid the current presidential campaign.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said the Pope is “urging us to make the changes we need to protect our earth, and to treat all people with compassion and dignity,” entitling his CNN editorial “the moral call for equality.”

Reuters led a report with Pope Francis’ call for “world leaders to do more to combat climate change.”

Laurie Goodstein, also of the NY Times, said, “Francis on Friday called on the hundreds of leaders from the world’s religions who surrounded him to be a ‘force for reconciliation.’ ”

And still more from the articulate Times headlined their summary of the Pope’s message as a call “for peace and environmental justice.”

Not to be out articulated by the more issue-oriented angles, the Intramuralist also read the following politicized headlines:

“The Pope’s Progressive Call to Action”
“Pope Francis’ Speech Is a Win for Progressives”
“Pope Francis Calls Out the ‘Industry of Death’ ”
“The Patron Saint of the Left”
(And, perhaps shocking to some) “Top Signs Pope Francis is an Honest Conservative”

What I observe is a desire to politicize the Pope’s message. Granted, Pope Francis has invited much of the deliberation, as he has publicly articulated various political positions. But let’s acknowledge what’s missing from each of the above characterizations.  ..

Pope Francis serves as the 266th and current Pope of the Catholic Church. The worldwide Catholic Church teaches that it was founded by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the foundation of what the Roman Catholic Church believes.

What’s missing in each of the above editorials?

Any mention of Jesus.

While there’s much to like and discuss in the editorialized calls for justice, compassion, dignity, reconciliation, and peace, if Jesus is omitted from the conversation, then my sense is that we are not summarizing the Pope’s message accurately; we are crafting characterizations based more on our desired perspective than on the Pope’s actual words. We are politicizing something that should not be politicized.

Note that in New York, the Pope called on people to spread the Word of God; he urged listeners to be faithful, holding onto the hope God provides. He also, when first arriving, encouraged clergy to walk humbly with their God — all messages consistent with scripture.

Pope Francis believes that the kingdom he serves is not “of this world.” He believes in Jesus, and his belief propels his perspective. Sometimes we forget that. We conveniently omit it, too.

Respectfully…
AR

09/24/201509/24/2015

ask the pope

For the first time, Pope Francis, the leader of the Catholic Church, is walking on American soil. And so I asked you, if you could ask him a single question — concisely and respectfully — with great wit always welcome — what would your question be? Here are your top 50…

What is love?
How can I pray for you?
Do you pray for world peace?
Can you explain free will?
Which came first — the chicken or the egg?
What’s your most embarrassing moment?
Who do you think will be the religious leader in the end times?
Do you ever get depressed or feel overwhelmed by the sadness and violence in the world?
Who’s your favorite NFL team? Do you ever pay attention?
What makes you so forward thinking and accepting?
How do you feel when the Ten Commandments or a Nativity scene is ordered to be removed?
When the Bible speaks of “the great prostitute,” to whom do you think it is referring?
What is the ideal role between church and state?
If you could be a rockstar, who would you be and why?
What’s more important to you personally: the Bible or tradition?
How would you diffuse the racial tensions in this country?
Do you know how to use an iPhone?
What are the absolutes in life?
How have the political left and right marginalized God’s Word?
Why does the Catholic Church believe that Mary was immaculately conceived when there is no supporting Biblical passage?
What do you do when it all gets too much?
How do you respond to the person who says “I was born this way”?
“Tastes great” or “less filling”?
Do you believe Islam is a peaceful religion?
What are you doing here?
What’s your favorite book in the Bible?
What do you really think of Pres. Obama?
Do you believe Christianity is “under attack”?
Is world peace possible this side of heaven?
Is it ok not to be Catholic?
What would you say those at a #BlackLivesMatter protest?
Do you think our police have a problem — or some have a problem with police?
Why are you talking about climate change instead of The Gospel?
Do you enjoy wearing what looks like a dress all the time?
What’s the biggest problem in the American church today?
Can you explain why so many use religion as a justification for war, violence, judgment, and other forms of hatred throughout the world?
Coke or Pepsi?
What do we not realize about abortion?
Have you considered changing tradition to allow priests to marry?
Why does the Catholic Church prohibit women from the priesthood? …do you see this ever changing?
How serious do you believe the threats to religious liberty are in this country?
Which candidate for President do you like best?
What do you think about Donald Trump?
If you had a tattoo, where would it be, what would it say, and why?
Do you believe our country is spiraling morally out of control?
Do you wear pants?
What do you struggle with?
What do you want your legacy to be? …what do you believe God wants your legacy to be?
What is the number one thing we can do to honor God?

And… last but not least…

50. Do you think Pope jokes are funny??

Respectfully…
AR